9.  At the material time the first applicant, Feridun Yazar, was chairman of the People's Labour Party (Halkın Emeği Partisi – “the HEP”), the second applicant, Ahmet Karataş, was its vice-chairman and the third applicant, İbrahim Aksoy, was its general secretary.
10.  On 7 June 1990 the HEP was founded and its constitution was filed with the Ministry of the Interior.
11.  On 3 July 1992 Principal State Counsel at the Court of Cassation applied to the Turkish Constitutional Court to have the HEP dissolved. In his application he accused the party of having undermined the integrity of the State. He submitted that certain statements made at meetings and to the press by the party's leaders and senior officials at both central and local level had infringed the Constitution and the Law on the regulation of political parties. He also accused the HEP of assisting and protecting those of its members who had committed illegal acts.
12.  On 8 July 1992 the President of the Constitutional Court sent Principal State Counsel's application to the chairman of the HEP, inviting him to submit his preliminary observations in reply.
13.  On 3 September 1992 the HEP's lawyer filed his preliminary written observations and requested a hearing. In his observations he submitted, in particular, that the Law on the regulation of political parties contained provisions that were contrary to the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution. He also maintained that the dissolution of the party, as called for by Principal State Counsel, would contravene international instruments such as the European Convention on Human Rights, the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Helsinki Final Act and the Charter of Paris for a New Europe. In addition, he argued that there was insufficient evidence of the links between the HEP and the PKK (Workers' Party of Kurdistan). He further contended that Principal State Counsel's application referred to statements made by individuals, for which the HEP could not be held liable, pursuant to section 101(b) of the Law on the regulation of political parties.
14.  On 22 January 1993 the HEP's lawyer submitted his observations on the merits. He again requested a hearing. He also sought leave, should that request be refused, for the HEP's chairman and his predecessors to give evidence to the Constitutional Court.
15.  The Constitutional Court acceded to the latter request. Accordingly, the former chairman and the chairman of the HEP made oral submissions to the court on 1 March 1993.
16.  On 14 July 1993 the Constitutional Court decided to dissolve the HEP. Its judgment was served on Principal State Counsel, the Speaker of the National Assembly and the Prime Minister's Office.
17.  The Constitutional Court's judgment was published in the Official Gazette on 18 August 1993.
18.  In its judgment the Constitutional Court began by reiterating the main constitutional principles of relevance to the case, to the effect that all persons living within Turkish territory, whatever their ethnic origin, formed a whole united by their common culture. Accordingly, the sum of the persons who made up the Republic of Turkey was called the “Turkish nation”. The different ethnic groups making up the “nation” were therefore not divided into a majority or minorities. The Constitutional Court pointed out that, under the Constitution, no political or legal distinction based on ethnic or racial origin could be made between citizens. All Turkish nationals could avail themselves of all civil, political and economic rights without discrimination.
19.  With particular reference to Turkish citizens of Kurdish origin, the Constitutional Court held that in every region of Turkey these enjoyed the same rights as other Turkish citizens. That did not mean, it added, that the Constitution did not acknowledge the existence of a Kurdish identity, since citizens of Kurdish origin were not forbidden to express their Kurdish identity. The Kurdish language could be used on all private premises, at places of work, in the press and in works of art and literature.
20.  The Constitutional Court reiterated the principle that all people were bound to observe the provisions of the Constitution even if they did not agree with them. The Constitution did not preclude the celebration of difference but forbade propaganda that was based on racial difference and was aimed at destroying the constitutional order. The Constitutional Court pointed out that under the Treaty of Lausanne, having a separate language or ethnic origin was not in itself sufficient for a group to qualify as a minority.
21.  With regard to the HEP's activities, the Constitutional Court examined, in particular, the written and oral statements made at public and private meetings by the party's leaders and by other officials at various levels. It also considered the content of calendars on sale to the public and slogans shouted at various meetings held on the HEP's premises.
22.  The Constitutional Court was particularly critical of the HEP for “seeking to divide the Turkish nation in two, with Turks on one side and Kurds on the other, with the aim of establishing separate States” and for “seeking to destroy national and territorial integrity”. It considered in that connection that the HEP was asserting through its activities that there was a separate Kurdish people with its own culture and language, which the Kurds were not free to practise. The HEP demanded the right to self-determination for the Kurds, advocated the setting up of “Kurdish provinces” and described the terrorist acts committed by the PKK as acts of international war. It regarded PKK terrorists as freedom fighters and claimed that instead of combating them, the security forces were in fact seeking to bring about the mass extermination of the Kurdish people. In all its activities, in which the sole emphasis was on equality between Turks and Kurds, the HEP was calling for the establishment of a State built on racist foundations, thereby jeopardising the concept of the “Turkish nation”, one of the principles on which the State had been founded. In the Constitutional Court's view, “the HEP's aims resembled those of terrorists” and “the use of accusatory and aggressive statements based on falsehoods, which the HEP's leaders constantly repeated as a form of provocation, was likely to promote tolerance of terrorist acts and to justify and encourage their perpetrators”.
23.  The Constitutional Court concluded that the HEP's activities were subject, inter alia, to the restrictions referred to in paragraph 2 of Article 11 and to the provisions of Article 17 of the Convention. It pointed out in that connection that the Charter of Paris for a New Europe condemned racism, ethnic hatred and terrorism, and that the Helsinki Final Act guaranteed adherence to the principles of the inviolability of national frontiers and of territorial integrity.
24.  The Constitutional Court accordingly ordered the dissolution of the HEP on the ground that its activities were such as to undermine the territorial integrity of the State and the unity of the nation.
25.  However, the Constitutional Court dismissed Principal State Counsel's second argument that the HEP implicitly or explicitly tolerated the illegal actions of its members. In that connection, it took into account the fact that the various criminal proceedings instituted against members of the HEP were still pending and that none of its members had yet been found guilty.
II.  VIEWS SUPPORTED BY THE HEP LEADERS, AS SET OUT BY THE TURKISH CONSTITUTIONAL COURT IN ITS JUDGMENT OF 14 JULY 1993
26.  The main ideas put forward in the HEP leaders' speeches, explanations and statements, as outlined in the Turkish Constitutional Court's judgment, may be summarised as follows.
(a)  There is a Kurdish people in Turkey which has its own language and culture and is oppressed.
(b)  The Kurds are not allowed to read or write in Kurdish or improve their knowledge of the language and are unable to develop their culture.
(c)  The Kurds are fighting for freedom and democracy. A parallel is drawn with the legend of Kawa, who had revolted against the oppressive King Dehhak 2,600 years ago; it is asserted that more and more people are emulating Kawa.
(d)  The Kurdish people have the right to self-determination.
(e)  The Kurdish people cannot avail themselves of any rights arising from international agreements.
(f)  The problems in eastern Turkey are not of an economic nature.
(g)  The statutory measures taken against organised terrorism constitute an international war, and the armed organisation (the PKK) is one of the belligerents.
(h)  The armed militants belonging to that organisation are freedom fighters. It is therefore natural that the international laws of war should be applied to them, but the Turkish government has not put that into practice.
(i)  The Turkish army and the security forces pursue the aim of physically destroying the Kurdish masses from which the Kurdish militants are drawn rather than fighting them.
(j)  Since the break-up of the USSR, the course of history has caused Turkish citizens of Kurdish origin to take an interest in that phenomenon, and a parallel has consequently been drawn with the situation of the Palestinian people.
(k)  The Republic has been founded by the Turkish and Kurdish peoples. Turks and Kurds should establish a social system based on equality between the two ethnic groups, without taking any others into account.
(l)  The government forces stationed in south-eastern Turkey have been deployed not against the terrorists but against the Kurdish people and have appropriated their national rights.
(m)  The HEP is also the party of the oppressed Kurds, the workers, other oppressed and exploited ethnic groups, the Arabs, the Circassians, the Laz and the Albanians.
(n)  The United Nations should hold a conference on the Kurdish question as soon as possible.
(o)  The Kurdish problem is the biggest obstacle to democracy. Until it is solved, democracy cannot be developed in Turkey.